Thoughts and Prayers: The Religion Thread

The evangelical interpretation
FRANCIS: Well, blessed is just about everyone with a vested interest in the status quo, as far as I can tell, Reg.

REG: Yeah. Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem.

 

This makes me wonder what you mean by "Christianity." Because my church operates very specifically with Jesus's message as its central tenants, and members strive to go out of their way to live out his social ideals. They are part and parcel of who/what the church is.

 

You're getting dragged into an argument where you're going to be told how blind and deluded you are for believing what four men did to the teacher and prophet Jesus, and then what Paul did to start a political revolution among the Gentiles.

It's useful though. This is the kind of opposition Christians should expect, and, in many other countries, do.

 

Alma, is this the kind of interaction you expect in daily life or just here? This is a sincere question. Maybe it's a function of living in the Baptist Vatican, but it's fairly rare to see or hear of Christians belittled in conversation. In fact, there are two things that are sometimes mentioned which put me in fleeing antelope mode in less than a minute:
1. My dad was Jewish.
2. The anthropology thing.
When I hear, "Oh, we're gonna have some GOOD arguments!" I suddenly have to pee/see someone I know in the distance/return a phone call/go feed my friend's goats in the next state.

 

How have Christians treated opposition over the past 1700 hundred years? How many million were killed in the name of Christ, by Christians, who would not convert? And by Christians, I mean people with your faith. How many millions were enslaved by Christians, Christians with your faith and beliefs, because they were viewed as less than human. And justified by Christianity as less than human, by the same faith you exercise today.

 

Eh, I won't get dragged into anything. That's why I've kept my posts on this thread to a minimum. Clearly, heyabbott and I have different takes on "Christianity," and what it means to us, and why. But his view seems so skewed -- so purposely, baitingly so, actually, as to seem almost disingenuous to me -- that it begs at least some response.

 

I think he's angry.

And like a lot of folks over the centuries, he wonders why a benevolent God would visit this sort of pain and sickness on a loved one.

It's a central question asked of every faith, not just Christianity. In all these years, no one has a very good answer.

And the beef over Paulism is as old as the church.

 

I dunno. Tell me more about the god you don’t think is real anyway. If the god isn’t real it’s jusr a human construct anyhow. And if the god isn’t real - but man makes him so anyway as a cover for vicious deeds - well, doesn’t say much for the core identity of human nature then, does it?

 

The core of each human is a need to connect and belong to at least one other person. Collectively the few that are strong oppress the majority. That is the history of humanity. And when the strong cloak themselves as imbued by god, it makes the majority sheep. Evangelical preachers are excellent at cultivating human sheep and fleecing them.

 

The search for something outside of ourselves in an effort to make sense of life may predate homo sapien sapiens. Some academics see evidence in what is left behind by neanderthals. (I kinda like them better than my own species, but that's a sidebar.) Homo sapiens sapiens seem to be the ones who use it more as a way to keep people in line than as a cultural/psychological woobie* when circumstances slide out of control.

I'm trying to understand why disagreement=attack with religious discourse, especially with many -not all!- Christians. It seems to go one way. "Do you believe in the inerrancy of sacred writ?" Attack. "Why do some Christians believe in transmorgrification and others see wine as sinful?" Attack. "Jesus says not to judge. (Matthew 7:1-6)" ATTACK! Attackattackattackattack! Hater. Yet Christians still couch discussions about my background (usually revealed by someone else) as "arguments." This makes me think the objective is to win or convert or at the very least, make me and anyone listening think less of whatever it is they want to argue about.

You're going to ignore this and insist on the victim narrative and I am still going to put this out here or you have me filtered. Fine. I'm still going to respond because I'm bloody minded that way.

*Stick taps to Mr. Mom.

 

Same faith in name, not in practice.

 

I disagree. It wasn’t the practice of Christianity that brought slavery to end or segregation. Evangelicals are by and large the most selfish group in the country. Their salvation and their material lives are all that concern them, and anti abortion.